Thursday, 13 November 2014

Nightingale versus Seacole…round two!

Roger Watson, Editor-in-Chief

You may recall ‘Nightingale versus Seacole…round one!’ which I wrote after we published McDonald’s (2013) less than complimentary piece on
Mary Seacole’s contribution to modern nursing. That piece did not go unnoticed and as a result Staring-Derks et al. (2014) have recently published an
article titled, ‘MarySeacole: global nurse extraodinaire’. I say as a result, rather than in reaction to, as Staring-Derks et al. – while
citing McDonald’s article – decided not to confront her arguments ‘head on’ and
what results is a very measured, polite and well-referenced piece.

Clearly, by labelling
these rounds one and two respectively I am hoping that further correspondence
and articles will arise, perhaps not from the original ‘protagonists’ but from
others with a view on the relative contributions of Nightingale and Seacole to
modern nursing and healthcare.Whatever
one’s view – and JAN is neutral in this debate – the influence of Mary
Seacole is undeniable. I was in Edgbaston in Birmingham recently, taking a
taxi past Birmingham City
University, and noticed another Seacole Building; few universities
where nursing is taught are without one. The Seacole ‘lobby’ and the move in the UK, for example, to have a
statue erected in her honour, are well organised and influential. I am not aware of a similar ‘lobby’ for
Florence Nightingale; perhaps her place in the history of nursing is assured.